This presentation from the 1st International Symposium on Pedagogic Frailty is available by clicking on the link below:
Participants constructing concept maps at the pedagogic frailty symposium.
University of Surrey – 6th September 2017
Flipped pedagogy is not really an issue of technology. It is a problem of teaching. What guides that teaching is the values that underpin our decisions in classroom management. Whilst we could write books on this subject, for practical purposes here, I would suggest four guiding principles that should be considered:
Appreciate students’ prior knowledge. This is not to say that we have to assess each student to see what they are bringing with them. If you have a class of 400 students, such one-to-one interrogation is not practical. It is more important that students activate their own prior knowledge and understand what is important in the ‘new context’ of the current course.
Consider the relationship between meaningful and rote learning. Do you want students to memorise facts to be regurgitated or do you want them to be able to apply those higher order thinking skills that require synthesis, evaluation and creation of knowledge?
Consider the value of formative assessment. This can help to activate prior knowledge and get students to better appreciate our expectations of meaningful learning. Well-constructed formative assignments can also help students to organise and structure their knowledge so that it can be used more effectively in the future.
Consider where you want to be on the student-centred / teacher-centred spectrum. Again, this relates to the ways in which the previous principles are enacted.
These four guiding principles are not isolated from each other. The relationships between these elements are dynamic – see the figure below. Therefore, if we fail with respect to one of these guiding principles, we are in danger of letting to whole enterprise collapse.
In the PowerPoint slides that are included below, I show how the neglect of meaningful learning (possibly through lack of constructive alignment between learning outcomes and assessments) allows the dominance of rote learning to negate any interest in formative assessment or prior knowledge. The outcome of this will be a focus on lower order thinking skills and a retreat into traditional, conservative modes of teaching:
For set of PowerPoint slides that show what happens when meaningful learning is replaced by rote learning: click values and principles for flipping
Where the two models presented in the slides attached are in simultaneous operation within a department, the students will probably opt for the line of least resistance and strategically opt to focus on the lower order thinking skills that are rewarded by rote learning. Students are therefore less well prepared for study in the following year (where understanding of previous modules will be assumed), or indeed for professional practice where students have to apply theory to practice in novel situations. So, if the underlying values of the curriculum are not explicitly shared across a faculty, there is a danger of the environment exhibiting pedagogic frailty and the typical outcome will be a retreat into conservative and ‘safe’ pedagogic practices. Where this happens, the energy expended on developing a flipped classroom will have been wasted.
Values should be the starting point for the development of the flipped classroom, not content or technology.
For further information and access to the registration link:
The programme will include the following presentations:
“The Origins and Potential of Pedagogic Frailty”
Prof. Ian Kinchin, University of Surrey, UK.
“Safe Spaces or Strange Places? Pedagogic Frailty and the Quality of Learning in Higher Education”
Prof. Ray Land, University of Durham, UK.
“Bend or Break? Dimensions of Intrapersonal and Organisational Resilience”
Dr. Naomi Winstone, University of Surrey, UK.
“Do No Harm: Risk Aversion versus Risk Management in the context of Pedagogic Frailty”
Dr. Julie Hulme, Keele University, UK.
“Profiling Pedagogic Frailty”
Prof. Paulo Correia, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
“Developing Online Resources to Support the Exploration of Pedagogic Frailty”
Miss Irina Niculescu, University of Surrey, UK.
Over twenty years ago Carr (1994: 49) wrote:
‘It is a shallow and false view of education and teaching which takes it to be a matter of the technical transmission of pre-packaged knowledge and skills in the context of efficient management’
However, it seems that this false view is still able obscure a more contemporary and research-informed views of teaching. The on-going drive for ‘teaching excellence’ still seems to focus on actions of the teacher that promote Carr’s ‘shallow view’. That is not to say that the student voice is not important, but we need to ensure that students are asked the right questions so that we do not promote student passivity as learners and do not subvert the student voice for purely political ends.
Fitzgerald et al (2002) wrote, ‘I value student perspectives in thinking about my practice. However, the institutional instrument designed to assess student perspectives focuses on a form of practice that ill fits my own values. Each semester students have been asked to rate the course and instructor on a nineteen-item rating scale. Many of the items are consistent with a teacher-directed pedagogy and linear information-processing model of learning (for example, Objectives are Clear, The Instructor Enhanced Knowledge of Subject, Organised Class Sessions Well, Demonstrates Knowledge of the Subject). When I first came to Uni, I was intimidated by these student evaluations because I believed them to be overly focused on clear objectives and a class structure predicated on teacher control of the classroom. These survey items do not adequately capture what I hope to accomplish in the classroom, and I correctly anticipated receiving mixed review on this measure. Students may desire and need clearly presented knowledge, attained in a highly structured teacher-directed context, but educational opportunities are impoverished if this is the only form of pedagogy provided. A rather monovocal assessment tool inscribes a particular vision of education, and fails to provide useful feedback to educators who teach in alternative ways. This narrow representation of education limits our vision of what ‘good’ education might be, and privileges a particular mode of learning.’
So are we still promoting ‘monovocal assessment tools’ ? If so why? Many commentators ask why those who purportedly revere the power of critical thinking go on to employ simplistic, quantitative tools to ‘measure’ teaching quality. Clearly, in the UK, the Government’s agenda to assess teaching is pushing things along with a single purpose in mind. Katzner (2012) has asserted that in their quest to describe, analyze, understand, know, and make decisions, western societies have accepted the myth of synonymy between objective science and measurement. He comments that what we cannot measure gets demoted as ‘less important’. If it has been measured, it must be ‘scientific’ and ‘rigorous’ – especially if we can apply statistical analysis that the common man/woman will not understand.
So we go from monovocal to monocular (possibly also myopic). A system in which ‘ideas diversity’ and ‘methodological variation’ (typically seen as indicators of health for an academic community) are apparently no longer valued. We then end up with a ‘hard core’ set of unquestioned statements and assumptions that are not supported by evidence. The result is that we have an academic community that will survive by ‘maintaining their autonomy and academic freedom through demonstrating symbolic compliance or pragmatic behaviour’ (Teelken, 2012: 287). This could result in innovative teaching being driven underground, like a resistance movement – a situation that is likely to promote pedagogic frailty (Kinchin, et al, 2016). An outcome that is the opposite of that intended. Fitzgerald et al (2002) talked about values as the underpinning concept that drives things forwards with any meaning. I wonder if the explication of values (particularly shared values, rather than any spurious mission statement placed on a web site) by universities will form part of the TEF, which will inform teaching evaluations in the UK over the coming years. Or is teaching supposed to be ‘values-free’ in the modern era? I didn’t get that memo.
Carr, D. (1994) Educational enquiry and professional knowledge: Towards a Copernican revolution. Educational Studies, 20(1): 33 – 54.
Fitzgerald, L.M., Farstad, J.E. & Deemer, D. (2002) What gets ‘mythed’ in the student evaluations of their teacher education professors? In: Loughran, J. and Russell, T. (Eds.) Improving teacher education practices through self-study. London, Routledge/Falmer (pp. 203-214).
Katzner, D. W. (2012). Unmeasured information and the methodology of social scientific inquiry. Springer Science & Business Media.
Kinchin, I.M., Alpay, E., Curtis, K., Franklin, J., Rivers, C. and Winstone, N.E. (2016) Charting the elements of pedagogic frailty. Educational Research, 58(1): 1 – 23.
Teelken, C. (2012) Compliance or pragmatism: how do academics deal with managerialism in higher education? A comparative study in three countries. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3): 271 – 290.